Nerdy me: It took more effort to cut this report down than it did to write it. Not to mention finding the sources to corroborate what James had to say.

Apathetic me: He knows too much for his own good.

Nerdy me: For once, I may agree with you. Anyway, here it is. The report. In its entirety, this time, mainly because there were some changes made to the first half. Mostly taking out content, but oh well. Enjoy, all.

———————————————————–

Introduction

A study of the history of mankind invariably includes a study of warfare. As man has evolved through the ages, the ways in which large scale conflict is waged also evolved. From biblical battlefields to modern urban combat, the prosecution and tools of war have changed in remarkable ways. Often, these changes are slow, building on innovations through the centuries, such as the progression from tools of rock and wood to implements of bronze and iron.[1] Now and then, however, progress accelerates. From the onset of the American Revolution onward, fighting that started with formal lines of soldiers facing off across an open field became intermixed with partisan tactics.[2] World War I began with frontal assaults throwing themselves against entrenched positions and ended with tanks, machine guns, chemical weapons, and bombs dominating tactical and strategic thinking.[3] Even the recent Iraq War began as a clash of conventional government forces but later devolved into asymmetric urban skirmishing.

As with many lessons, however, the adaptations and techniques gleaned from evolutions in warfare were forgotten by the time the next conflict started, much to the detriment of troops in the field. In spite of the way the character of war changes throughout every conflict, the lasting effect of these changes is either minimal, on a tactical level, or doesn’t last at all. Very few conflicts have an inexorable effect upon the way in which wars are prosecuted for years to come. One such historical turning point is the American Civil War. The Civil War, though beginning in a chivalric, Napoleonic style, evolved into a totally new kind of war, ushering in the tactics and strategy which would be a hallmark in modern warfare for years to come.[4]

European Warfare – Killing, the Polite Way

If one thing could be said for the European style of warfare, it was highly organized. Men lined up in long walls, weapons at the ready, marching steadily toward one another in a slow, deliberate courtship with death. This way of fighting could trace its origins to the ancient Greek phalanx or Roman legion, and for centuries remained essentially unchanged, due in part to the lack of range and accuracy in early ranged weapons. Even when weapons such as muskets became available, opposing forces were required to close in on one another before their fire could be effective. Case in point, the famous order issued at the Battle of Bunker Hill to “[not] fire until [the Continentals] see the whites of their eyes” was not a test of mettle or a form of intimidation, but an ammunition saving precaution, hoping to make every shot count.

Turning back the clock to King Henry V’s 15th century campaign in, the Battle of Agincourt provides a prime example of the European style of war. Before battle even commenced, heralds (messengers travelling under a flag of truce) would approach the opposing force, issuing a challenge to the leader to enjoin their forces in battle. If rejected, the opposition would not press the issue and attack, though pursuit would continue and further pressure would be applied. Societal codes of honor dictated the terms on which fighting would occur, both sides delaying until the respective commanders both felt they held advantage.[5]

Upon agreeing to the time and location for battle, both sides set their forces as they deemed fit, waiting for one side or another to instigate fighting with actions as simple as taunts. Occasionally, as at Agincourt, taunts could take a more sinister form. Instead of “cocking-a-snook,” a true act of aggression instigated battle.[6] Here, as the French observed their numerically outmatched foe, English archers proceeded to rain down volleys of arrows upon the French lines, inciting them to charge. French reluctance to consider archers a threat allowed the English to fluster their opponent, resulting in an ill-fated charge into a forest of sharpened spikes hidden within the English lines.[7] In this way, Henry V and his “band of brothers” defeated a numerically superior French force in “honorable” combat, though somewhat unorthodox in its execution.

European warfare came to its highest form under the leadership of Napoleon Bonaparte in the early 19th century. His focus on maneuvering armies against one another and intermeshing tactical and operational goals provided the framework from which Clausewitz was able to compile his treatise On War, which would eventually supersede the works of Jomini as the dominant form of strategic thinking.[8] Even in the Napoleonic Wars, however, European soldiers experienced a different form of warfare. As Napoleon’s professional men of arms traversed Russia, they encountered the burned remains of several important cities, including Moscow. Cossacks fleeing from the numerically superior French took to devastating the countryside to keep vital supplies out of enemy hands. Even Clausewitz, as enlightened a thinker as he was, could not reconcile these acts with the rigid Napoleonic dictum placing non-military targets off limits.[9] Within a century, however, no such restrictions would apply, even for Europeans.

The Civil War – Americans, Doing Things Their Own Way

When the American Civil War began, there was already a distinct difference between American forces and their European counterparts. America had no standing army when the war began, and most participants were initially volunteers. Men on either side lined up to participate in what was believed to be a short-lived conflict, thanks to their patriotic fervor or curiosity.[10] Most of these men were either ill-trained or not trained at all, and when the First Battle of Bull Run began on 21 July, 1861, the results of using an army of volunteers was clearly evident.[11]

In lieu of a full report on the battle, one can summarize many of the day’s events in one word: chaos. The random distribution of uniforms and colors caused some soldiers to fire upon their own men, lines to intermingle, and commanders to struggle to maintain cohesion.[12] The Confederacy nevertheless carried the day, forcing the Union forces to depart in a massively disorganized retreat called the “Great Skedaddle,” mingling with observers fleeing the fighting.[13]

Initially, both Confederate and Union forces formed organized lines facing one another in the field outside Manassas in Napoleonic style, marching toward one another until their weapons came to bear. As Napoleon had done half a century earlier, Union General McDowell focused his effort on complicated maneuvers designed to turn the Confederate flank. As it would turn out, these maneuvers were far too complicated for his untrained soldiers to complete.

Combined casualties approached 4,700.[14] What many generals failed to realize about this battle, however, was that it was a harbinger of what was to come.[15] Between this battle and the Seven Days in mid 1862, generals like the commander of Union forces George McClellan found themselves with devastation on a level heretofore unheard of. McClellan was so shaken by the sheer number of casualties that he sought an improbable goal, a Jominian “decisive victory” which would end the war in one swift attack.[16] This was no longer a Jominian war, however.[17]

Many commanders, from both sides of the war, earned their first taste of combat during the Mexican War in the late 1840s. In that conflict, the sum total of American casualties came out at approximately 16,000 out of a force which numbered 60,000 at most.[18] The Battle of Antietam alone passed that entire war’s casualty mark by 6,000.[19] The casualty counts were unfathomable by most of those alive at the time. Perhaps they should not have been so surprising, however. First and foremost, it is important to consider the weapons of the time. In 1861, the US Army began issuing the Springfield Model 1861 while the Confederacy typically relied on the Pattern 1853 Enfield, both rifled muskets. Rifling did not become common practice for weapons until the 19th century and, as such, military commanders were still unaccustomed to the effects rifled muskets had on a battlefield. Rifled muskets imparted a spin on their projectile, further enhanced new ammunition. This deadly combination saw limited use in the Crimean War, but it wasn’t until the American Civil War that armies took full advantage of them. The spin of the new Minié ball stabilized it in flight, increasing the effective range of muskets from 50 to almost 400 yards. Later in the war, repeating rifles were added to the inventory, allowing soldiers to fire off rounds at rates never before imagined.[20] This in rendered frontal charges foolhardy, especially when an entrenched defender could wipe out an advancing enemy long before they could prepare for engagement, much less enter a melee.[21]

Just as important is the development of artillery. Standard cannon shot and grape shot were complimented by canister shot, explosive shells, and shrapnel.[22] These proved devastating against long lines of men, especially at the Battle of Gettysburg.[23] During Pickett’s charge on 3 July, 1863, 12,500 men advanced on the union lines atop Cemetery Ridge. Between musket and cannon fire, they suffered over 50% casualties. Shot and shell alike ripped through the soldiers with deadly efficiency, and though the gaps they created were swiftly filled, the numbers game was not in the Rebels’ favor.[24] By the end of the war, soldiers on both sides saw the futility of now-outdated frontal assaults, especially over open ground, John Bell Hood excepted, of course.

Hood, a Confederate general, used frontal assaults until the end of the war as a means of “discipline.” Doing so Battle of Franklin in 1864 resulted in the Army of Tennessee being knocked off the map as a major fighting force.[25] Instead, commanders began adopting siege tactics, such as at the use of trench warfare during the Richmond-Petersburg Campaign from mid-1864 to early 1865. Instead of sending waves of troops against the defenses of Petersburg, soldiers dug trenches around the city, using them to move closer and closer until they could attack the defenses in relative safety. The Army of the Potomac used their massive siege guns to pound the city’s walls, and miners tunneled under them to set explosive charges. Technology now dominated siege warfare, not just the ravages of time and starvation.[26]

Technology’s effect on the war was not limited to the battlefield, though. Millions of men fought on both sides, requiring mobilization on a scale heretofore unseen in the Americas. Half a century earlier, during the Napoleonic Wars, almost half a million men were forced to march on foot through the desolate wastes of a Russian winter. This Grande Armée suffered over 80% losses during its campaign. Though at no point were half a million men marching in the same group at the same time on either side during the Civil War, hundreds of thousands did have to make their way from one theatre of action to another. Thanks to railroads, this was made more than possible. The transcontinental railroad was still another four years off by the end of the war, but many lines made their way up and down the east coast and into the Midwest, allowing for the deployment of large contingents of men to points all around the country.[27]

Another technological innovation which permitted greater communication over the expansive theatres of the Civil War was the telegraph. For the first time, political and military leaders could exercise their will over remarkable distances almost instantaneously. The telegraph revolutionized command and control for years to come. Though not fully available at the start of the war, by 1862, President Lincoln used telegraphs to send messages to commanders in the field. These commanders returned reports directly to their commander-in-chief in the aftermath of a battle. The rapid exchange of thoughts and orders allowed political leaders to import a greater sense of urgency upon their generals than would have been possible using couriers.[28]

The final consideration on what made the American Civil War the first truly “modern” war involves the involvement of the home front. First and foremost, this war was truly brought to life for civilians on either side through the media. Use of telegraphs permitted stories and battle reports to be relayed to local newspapers faster than had ever been done before in America. Additionally, the photographs of individuals such as Matthew Brady allowed men and women to see the carnage of the battlefields while still miles away, safe in their homes. Unfortunately, and this next point almost distinguishes the Civil War as a “total” war, not all civilians were, in fact, safe in their homes. The battles occurred in the yards of family homesteads, sieges destroyed homes, offices, and industrial centers almost indiscriminately, and private property, especially that which could aid the enemy war effort, was often destroyed or confiscated without hesitation.

Confederate citizens felt the wrath of the Union war effort as their cities were pounded mercilessly. Vicksburg fell on the Fourth of July, 1863, and its citizens would not celebrate the day again for another century. Atlanta’s fall and subsequent burning at the hands of fleeing Confederates was reminiscent of the Cossacks path of strategic destruction in their retreat from Napoleon. Richmond, the very seat of Confederate government, was captured and burned to the ground. Even outside of the major cities, men and women were subject to the ravages of the war. During First Bull Run, Judith Carter Henry, an elderly widow died from wounds sustained after her home was targeted by Union artillery.[29] Wilmer McLean, a fellow resident of Manassas Junction, left his home after the battle to escape the carnage, only to have his new home used four years later as the site of the surrender of General Robert E. Lee to Union commanders.

All told, the cost of the war reached approximately $7 billion. Almost a quarter of this amount was attributed to property damage in the South.[30] Destruction on this scale, including the wholesale razing of cities, would not be seen again for half a century, and then it would take the whole world to surpass it. Never before had so much devastation been visited upon civilians, but from the end of the Civil War on, it would remain a threat for all countries which went to war.

Now, much of the damage done to private property was for the sake of the war effort, destroying or confiscating anything that had potential to be used as war materiel. Only some of it was psychological and, in contrast to a true total war, civilians themselves were not the direct target. In a real total war, there would be little to no concern about civilian deaths. In fact, they could be targeted directly in order to destroy morale on the home front. During his famous 1864 March to the Sea, General Sherman destroyed Confederate cities, farms, and homes. He did not, however, intentionally seek the death of civilians. In this way, even his campaign did not fit the strictest definition of a total war, but the introduction of private property into the realm of legitimate targets brought an end to the chivalric tendency to avoid such attacks.[31] The Civil War was no longer a European style chivalric conflict. This was the first modern war.

Why the Civil War More Than Any Other

Some sources argue that the first real modern war was the Crimean War in the 1850s. Proponents of this theory note that rifled weapons, trenches, and telegraphs were first used to any noticeable effect during this war. Tactical and technological advances such as these and others were present, yes.[32] However, the full scope of advances and changes in approach had a far broader and more transformative effect on the Civil War and future conflicts than any other war. Consider the First World War. Up until 1917, it was fought almost exclusively by Europeans. Frontal charges made by thousands of men against strongly defended positions were common, resulting in devastating losses. Clearly the lessons learned from the Crimean War, specifically those about trench tactics and the effect of new, more advanced weapons had gone unheeded. Seemingly the only thing that had changed in the prosecution of war was the addition of civilian centers to lists of targets, as seen in the German bombing of London, the widespread destruction in cities such as Vaux or Leuven that resulted from Germany’s Schrecklichkeit, or “terror,” policy, and the genocidal atrocities committed by Russia and the Ottoman Empire.[33][34][35][36]

Outdated tactics continued to rule the battlefield until American “doughboys” arrived in the spring of 1917. American soldiers and their commanders understood what would win this war. Though the troops were all new, the lessons of the Civil War remained. No longer was Napoleonic maneuvering the ticket to victory. A war of attrition, won by superior numbers and weapons, was the game. Four million Americans served in the First World War, with 110,000 dying in the line of duty. Though only 15% the number killed in the Civil War, factoring in the duration of American involvement in the First World War and the fact that they only fought on one side makes this number almost exactly proportional to the Civil War. Attrition, technology, and mobility won the war in a similar way as they had for the Union a half a century earlier. [37]

Conclusion

The American Civil War was a proving ground for old and new styles of warfare alike. The first years of the war showed the inadequacies of European and Napoleonic styles of warfare when faced with the technological advances of the time. Tactics and strategy evolved to adapt to the new character of war, utilizing new weapons, new forms of communication and conveyance, and opening the floodgates to total war, for the first time bringing private property and civilian populations under fire intentionally, with the purpose of breaking a people’s will.

Chivalry in war required that both sides stood a relatively equal chance of winning. Fairness and propriety were necessary for both sides to retain their honor, the only advantages coming from the superior wit of commanders or the stronger will of soldiers. The Civil War changed that. Asymmetric warfare became the norm, with technology, training, and numbers deciding victory. New technologies facilitated the movement and control of larger armies over greater distances. Including civilians and especially their property as potential targets brought a new dimension to psychological warfare and made public opinion as much a factor in determining strategy and policy as any political or military concerns. The Civil War was a watershed event in the history of armed conflict, and the transformative lessons learned through its four bloody years left an indelible mark on warfare and mankind as a whole.

Nerdy me: Good evening, folks. So, for those who don’t know (which is most of you), James is working on a report on how the American Civil War can be considered the first “modern” war. He’s going to put up what he has so far for anyone who wants to see, critique, comment, or make suggestions. The first five pages deal with everything from a brief history of conventions of European warfare to how the Civil War seemed to be a different kind of war and the effect of weapons upon the prosecution of battle. So, without further ado:

———————————————————–

Introduction

A study of the history of mankind invariably includes a study of warfare. As man has evolved through the millennia, the ways in which large scale conflict is waged has also evolved. From ancient biblical battlefields to modern urban combat, the prosecution and tools of war have changed in remarkable ways. Often, these changes are slow, building upon innovations throughout the centuries, such as the progression from tools of rock and wood to implements of bronze and iron.[1] Now and then, however, progress accelerates. From the onset of the American Revolution onward, fighting that started with formal lines of soldiers facing off across an open field became intermixed with partisan tactics.[2] World War I began with frontal assaults throwing themselves against entrenched positions and ended with tanks, machine guns, chemical weapons, and bombs dominating tactical and strategic thinking.[3] Even the recent Iraq War began as a clash of conventional government forces but later devolved into asymmetric urban skirmishing.

As with many lessons, however, the adaptations and techniques gleaned from evolutions in warfare were forgotten by the time the next conflict started, much to the detriment of troops in the field. In spite of the way the character of war changes throughout every conflict, the lasting effect of these changes is either minimal, on a tactical level, or doesn’t last at all. Very few conflicts have an inexorable effect upon the way in which wars are prosecuted for years to come. One such historical turning point is the American Civil War. The Civil War, though beginning in a chivalric, Napoleonic style, evolved into a totally new kind of war, ushering in the tactics and strategy which would be a hallmark in modern warfare for years to come.[4]

European Warfare – Killing, the Polite Way

If one thing could be said for the European style of warfare, it was highly organized. Men lined up in long walls, weapons at the ready, marching steadily toward one another in a slow, deliberate courtship with death. This way of fighting could trace its origins to the ancient Greek phalanx or Roman legion, and for centuries remained essentially unchanged, due in part to the lack of range and accuracy in early ranged weapons. Even when weapons such as muskets became available, opposing forces were required to close in on one another before their fire could be effective. Case in point, the famous order issued at the Battle of Bunker Hill to “[not] fire until [the Continentals] see the whites of their eyes” was not a test of mettle or a form of intimidation, but an ammunition saving precaution, hoping to make every shot count.

Turning back the clock to the early 15th century and the time of King Henry V’s campaign in France, the Battle of Agincourt provides a prime example of the European style of warfare, the relatively simple weapons involved notwithstanding. Before battle could even commence, heralds (essentially messengers travelling under a flag of truce) would approach the opposing force, issuing a challenge to the leader to enjoin their forces in battle. If rejected, the opposition would not press the issue and attack, though pursuit would continue and further pressure would be applied. Societal codes of honour dictated the terms on which fighting would occur, with both sides delaying until the respective commanders reached a point where they both felt they held advantage.[5]

Upon agreeing to the time and location for battle, both sides were allowed to set their forces as they deemed fit, waiting for one side or another to instigate fighting with actions as simple as taunts. Occasionally, as was the case at Agincourt, taunts could take a more sinister form where, instead of “cocking-a-snook,” a true act of aggression instigated battle.[6] Here, as the French observed their numerically outmatched foe, English archers proceeded to rain down volleys of arrows upon the French lines, inciting them to charge. French reluctance to consider archers a threat allowed the English to fluster their opponent, resulting in an ill-fated charge into a forest of sharpened spikes hidden within the English lines.[7] In this way, Henry V and his “band of brothers” defeated a numerically superior French force in “honourable” combat, though somewhat unorthodox in its execution.

Post-battle conduct was also characteristic of the attitudes toward honour and chivalry which were prevalent in the time. After the first French charge, the English took prisoners. When dining, Henry V himself invited French noblemen to join him, treating them as equals in spite of their status as enemy combatants. Not all prisoners were treated so generously, however. French prisoners held behind English lines were executed and casualties housed in cottages were incinerated. This controversial decision was a pragmatic one, however, to prevent the prisoners from re-arming themselves and attacking the English from the rear. The more common practice would be to “parole” soldiers, releasing them under their word of honour that they would not take up arms again.[8] Sometimes, however, the vagaries of war precluded such conduct, and this would remain the case four centuries later, though generally sans-atrocity.

European warfare came to its highest form under the leadership of Napoleon Bonaparte in the early 19th century. His focus on manoeuvring mass armies against one another and the intermeshing of tactical and operational goals provided the framework from which Clausewitz was able to compile his treatise On War, which would eventually supersede the works of Jomini as the dominant form of strategic thinking.[9] Even during the Napoleonic Wars, however, European soldiers were presented with an alternative form of warfare. As Napoleon’s force of professional men of arms made their way through Russia, they encountered the burned remains of several important cities, including the old capital of Moscow. Cossacks fleeing from the numerically superior force adopted an approach resembling “total war,” devastating the countryside and keeping vital supplies out of the hands of their enemy. Even Clausewitz, as enlightened a thinker as he was, could not reconcile these acts with the rigid Napoleonic dictum placing non-military targets off limits.[10] Within a century, however, no such restrictions would apply, even for Europeans.

The Civil War – Americans, Doing Things Their Own Way

When the American Civil War began, there was already a distinct difference between Union and Confederate forces and their European counterparts. America had no standing army at the time the war began, and the majority of participants were initially volunteers. Men on either side of the conflict lined up to participate in what was believed to be a short-lived conflict, thanks to their patriotic fervour or curiosity.[11] Most of these men were either ill-trained or not trained at all, and when the First Battle of Bull Run began on 21 July, the results of using an army of volunteers showed.[12]

In lieu of a full report on the battle, one can summarize many of the day’s events in one word: chaos. The random distribution of uniforms and inconsistent colours caused some individuals to fire upon their own men, lines to intermingle, and commanders to struggle to maintain cohesion.[13] The Confederacy nevertheless carried the day and forced the Union forces to depart in a massively disorganized retreat called the “Great Skedaddle,” mingling with casual observers fleeing the fighting.[14]

Initially, both the Confederate and Union forces formed up in organized lines facing one another in the field outside Manassas Junction in Napoleonic style, marching toward one another until their weapons came to bear. As Napoleon had done half a century earlier, Union General McDowell focused much of his effort on complicated manoeuvres designed to turn the Confederate flank. As it would turn out, these manoeuvres were far too complicated for his untrained soldiers to complete.

Combined casualties on either side approached 4,700.[15] What many generals failed to realize about this battle, however, was that it served as a harbinger of what was to come.[16] Between this battle and the Seven Days in mid 1862, generals such as the commander of Union forces George McClellan found themselves with devastation on a scale heretofore unheard of. McClellan was so shaken by the sheer number of men killed or wounded on either side that he sought an improbable goal, a Jominian “decisive victory” which would end the war in one swift attack.[17] This was no longer a Jominian war, however.[18]

Many commanders, from both sides of the war, earned their first taste of combat during the Mexican War in the late 1840s. In that conflict, the sum total of American casualties came out at approximately 16,000 out of a force which numbered at most 60,000.[19] The Battle of Antietam alone passed that entire war’s casualty mark by 6,000.[20] The casualty counts were unfathomable by most of those alive at the time. Perhaps they should not have been so surprising, however. First and foremost, it is important to consider the weapons of the time. In 1861, the US Army began issuing the Springfield Model 1861 while the Confederacy typically relied on the Pattern 1853 Enfield, both rifled muskets. Rifling did not become common practice for weapons until the 19th century, and as such, military commanders were still unaccustomed to the effects rifled muskets had on a battlefield. Rifled muskets imparted a spin on their projectile, and this was further enhanced by the characteristics of the Minié ball. This deadly combination saw limited use in the Crimean War, but it wasn’t until the American Civil War that armies took full advantage of them. The spin of the Minié ball stabilized it in flight, increasing the effective range of muskets from 50 to almost 400 yards. This in and of itself rendered frontal charges foolhardy, especially when an entrenched defender could wipe out an advancing enemy long before they could prepare for engagement, much less enter a melee.

Just as important is the development of artillery. Standard cannon shot and grape shot were complimented by canister shot, explosive shells, and shrapnel. These proved particularly devastating against long lines of men, especially at the Battle of Gettysburg. During Pickett’s charge on 3 July, 12,500 men advanced on the union lines atop Cemetery Ridge. Between musket and cannon fire, they suffered over 50% casualties. Shot and shell alike ripped through the soldiers with deadly efficiency, and though the gaps they created were swiftly filled, the numbers game was not in the Rebels’ favour. By the end of the war, soldiers on both sides saw the futility of now-outdated frontal assaults, especially over open ground, John Bell Hood excepted, of course.

Nerdy me: That’s all for now. As usual, James writes the report and then finds people to prove him right. Trust me, it works. Anyway, feel free to proofread or comment (I do hope you shall). Part two shall come forthwith…when it gets written. Only thing to be sure of, it’ll be done by Thursday. Well, it’d better be done by Thursday…

Nerdy me: Only one engine, but it’s quick due to its weight, and it has one of the smallest frontal aspect ratios of any modern aircraft, making it difficult to see heads-on. Advantageous in a dogfight.

Normal me: This particular kit came from the Italeri company. James had already sampled their work in the F-22A he had built three years ago, and he has a fairly high regard for the company. Once again, here’s a step by step, photo by photo representation of the work involved. Take it away, Nerdy and Artistic.

———————————————————–

Nerdy me: Step one involved building the cockpit and placing it in its proper location in the fuselage. Essentially a standard procedure. I’ll note, though, that the ejection handle – always a nice touch – is still a pain to paint due to its size. Making up for it is the quality of the decals. Nice ones, though the surface details are lacking.

Step 1 - Cockpit Assembly

Artistic me: Step two closed up the fuselage. Normal stuff, that, and not too difficult this time. The cockpit lined up relatively well and didn’t require significant nudging. Step three was the construction of the wings (basically just sticking the two top pieces on the one bottom one) and that was affixed to the fuselage in step four. Simple.

Step 2 - Fuselage Assembly

Step 3 - Wing Assembly

Step 4 - Wing-Fuselage Mating

Nerdy me: Now things start getting interesting again. You’ll notice in the next shot, the canards have been added, and there are now air brakes on the aft fuselage.

Step 5 - Canards, Air Brakes, etc.

Artistic me: And now things get less fun. Why? Because of white, that’s why. White paint is atrocious. Not as atrocious as silver, but it comes close. It takes far too many coats to cover well, and even more with gloss. Anyway, the landing gear and whatnot are going into place.

Step 6 - Landing Gear

Nerdy me: Now things have really come together. The gear doors are added, the canopy included, and other miscellaneous details such as antennae added. She’s nearing completion, and even has a preliminary paint job. You’ll note the yellow on the wing root – that’s a decal. James decided to put that one at least because that surface was fully painted and it gave a bit of a reference as to how it’ll look when completed.

Step 7 - Doors and Canopy

Artistic me: As much as i hate to say it, the weapons add even more to this aircraft, in a way. At least to the realism. Goodness knows this has plenty of them.

Step 8 - Weapons

Nerdy me: Now it’s time to put her on display. So here we go.

Beauty Shots

———————————————————–

Nerdy me: Well?

Normal me: She looks very nice indeed, I’m glad James decided to pick that kit up.

Sports Fanatic me: Yeah, I really want to fly that bird.

Apathetic me: Join the Swedish Air Force.

Sports Fanatic me: Will they give me their fish?

Apathetic me: Ugh…

Normal me: So, isn’t James thinking about using his new gloss-coat lacquer on it?

Artistic me: He is. He saw someone else’s kit, and they’d done that and it looks even better with it.

Normal me: How much work would it take to do that?

Artistic me: Not much, it’d just be a matter of taking it down and carefully brushing into the nooks and crannies on the underside. We’ll see, I suppose.

Normal me: Sounds like a plan. Well, that’s all for tonight, folks. Hope you enjoyed it. Ta ta for now.

Nerdy me: Do you remember the Daedalus Class Retrofit James was working on the last time we met here?

Artistic me: Yes, yes I do.

Nerdy me: It’s pretty much done.

Artistic me: Oh good, might we see?

Nerdy me: Let’s go in order of progress, shall we? First update occurred on the 12th. The dorsal portion of the primary hull was the first piece completed.

Sports Fanatic me: Fancy. What’s with all the little rectangles on the panels, though?

Nerdy me: James thinks they’re probably some sort of access things which can be used to remove the hull plating. He’s at a loss for a specific term. There’s a lot of smaller hatches for access to other components like comms and sensors. The phasers are also hidden behind the gray panels between decks three and four.

Normal me: Surely there must be more phasers than just those two

Nerdy me: Of course there are, and don’t call me Shirley.

Apathetic: I fear the collective wit of this group has diminished if we’re referencing Airplane.

Sports Fanatic me: Yeah, that just…that quote…yeah, I’m going to go back and watch the Penguins. Good news, they just took a 5-3 lead over the Flyers.

Normal me: Outstanding, now back to the business at hand.

Nerdy me: Sorry, yes, the following day, James added a significant amount of structure to the ship.

Artistic me: Oh good, it’s not just a ball.

Nerdy me: No, it’s not. The main drive section is still present. You’ll notice the impulse deflection crystal in the aft end of the neck extension (that blue glowy thing). There’s a glass housing over it, but it keeps making it look strange in renders due to the reflection, so James is probably going to remove that.

Normal me: Do I spy landing gear?

Nerdy me: Yes, you do. James hasn’t done much work with it yet. He may not. He’s cooled off a bit in terms of that idea.

Sports Fanatic me: (James Neal just scored his 30th goal of the year to put the Penguins up 6-3)

Artistic me: Maybe he should revisit it. It could make for some nifty scenes.

Nerdy me: Perhaps. Anyway, it took a while before he could post another update, and by the time he did, he’d started on the rest of the main drive section and even included a mess hall.

Artistic me: So, he can have scenes where you just look straight through the ship?

Nerdy me: Yes.

Artistic me: Gear fab…

Nerdy me: Indeed. The biggest problem was coming up with a good design for the nacelles, though. So naturally, James went back to the source from which he was deriving most of his design features from in the first place, the NX Class Enterprise. You’ll see in the next image just how much inspiration he drew from the nacelles on that ship.

Normal me: I see what you mean. For those who don’t know what he means, here’s the NX Class (designed by the inimitable Doug Drexler) from which James drew a lot of inspiration: http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/NX_class

Nerdy me: Indeed. The Polar Lights renders were seriously the most helpful thing he found when it came to detailing. Unfortunately, that’s the final update. The ship is currently being rendered for its first real test run. After that, James may go back and add a few details, but that remains to be seen. We’d post a sneak peek at what’s in the works, but it’s so deep in the works that there’s too little to see. Perhaps an update.

Sports Fanatic me: Oh, and the Penguins held on to beat the Flyers, 6-4. About time, too.

Normal me: Yeah really, seems like the Flyers had their number this year. Anyway, stay tuned for more work. Until later, stay cool, okay?

Rate this:

Normal me: What happened to that old Daedalus Retrofit James did a few years back?

Apathetic me: Fantastic question.

Sports Fanatic me: Didn’t that get lost?

Nerdy me: Yes, he lost it when he had to have his computer reformatted.

Artistic me: That’s a shame, it was a nice looking vessel, good for interesting compositions.

Nerdy me: Well, I’ve got good news for you, in that case.

Normal me: Oh? Do tell.

Nerdy me: James has started a new mesh, basically following the same design ethic as the previous one, but using the techniques he developed for the Avenger Redux mesh.

Artistic me: Oh, that is good news. Any idea when he’ll finish it?

Nerdy me: No clue. His main project is still the Animated Series CGI collection.

Sports Fanatic me: How’s that coming along?

Nerdy me: Well, last time we checked in, he’d just posted the original “Beyond the Farthest Star” image. In the mean time, he finished the Phase II’d version as well as compilation covers and an image for “Yesteryear.”

Normal me: And?

Nerdy me: Oh, right. Here they are.

Normal me: Spiffy.

Artistic me: Gear fab.

Sports Fanatic me: Slick.

Apathetic me: Anticlimactic. How is he supposed to redo this for Phase II?

Nerdy me: He didn’t have any plans to, really. What more could he do other than change the angle?

Apathetic me: Learn how to make CG people.

Normal me: We do not speak of such preposterous notions.

Sports Fanatic me: He could just look at it as a challenge.

Nerdy me: No.

Normal me: Anyway… how’s that Daedalus coming along anyway?

Nerdy me: Oh, glad you asked. A render just finished showing how far James has gotten on the primary hull.

Sports Fanatic me: Shiny.

Nerdy me: And in the time it took to render, here’s what else has been done.

Normal me: That’s looking even better than the original.

Artistic me: Indeed. Can’t wait til it’s done.

Nerdy me: But of course. Gotta get back to doing some real work for now, though.

Sports Fanatic me: Until the Penguins play Tampa Bay at 7, that is.

Normal me: Oh yeah, of course, how could we forget. That’s all we have for today, though. Stop in next time and maybe there’ll be more to see. Until then, be cool okay?

Artistic me: James’ brain. Next question? Seriously, though, I’m here with James’ most recent piece. He put it together last night during the game.

Sports Fanatic me: Fantastic game, that. Right down to the wire, up there with XLIII for the best Super Bowl ever. Incidentally, the Giants held off the Patriots to win the game 21-17, preventing the Pats from getting revenge for their loss to the Giants in XLII.

Artistic me: Yep, with the exception of an awful halftime, it was worth watching after all. Anyway, here’s the piece. Nerdy, analyze and discuss.

Nerdy me: Oh, yes, very nice. This is James’ CGI representation of the Star Trek: The Animated Series episode “Beyond the Farthest Star,” incidentally the first episode of the series, premiering on 8 September 1973, seven years to the day after the first broadcast episode of The Original Series (“The Man Trap”). In this episode, the Enterprise encounters a massive, ancient alien vessel, built by insectoid aliens. After exploring it, they find it was possessed by a “magnetic organism” which follows them to the Enterprise, which it proceeds to try to take over. The crew outwits it and, after manoeuvring close to “Questar M-17,” tricks it into thinking the ship is about to crash. The entity abandons the Enterprise and affixes itself to the dead star (comprised of “imploded matter” with “negative mass”) as the Enterprise narrowly escapes, flying off and leaving the entity there forever.

Apathetic me: Where it continues to whine and moan to this day.

Nerdy me: Yes indeed. Anyway, it was a gem of an episode in the context of TAS (and no, not like the character Gem of TOS).

Artistic me: Yeah, so here you have it. The insectoid ship was a serious pain to build, but if it weren’t for subdivision, it would have been nigh impossible. As for the star… James intentionally switched it to a quasar, since that makes a lot more sense than that Questar nonsense.

Rate this:

Sports Fanatic me: You know, it’s a good thing James has all the Steelers’ Super Bowl victories on DVD otherwise this weekend would be less than spectacular.

Normal me: What about the Penguins?

Sports Fanatic me: Of course he has them to watch tomorrow, but it’s Super Bowl weekend. Can’t really think of it as that without some football.

Apathetic me: You mean James isn’t going to be watching the repeat of Super Bowl XLII?

Sports Fanatic me: Was that a jab at the Patriots? Nice. Anyway, James’ll happily watch the Penguins (who incidentally beat the Boston Bruins today, 2-1, in a game featuring good performances by both goalies), but there’s an ingrained belief that Super Bowl Weekend has to feature the Steelers somehow, even if it’s watching old games.

Nerdy me: Is it my turn? Oh good. Anyone who knew there were two seasons of animated Star Trek in the ’70’s, raise your hand. Exactly. Anyone who knew that there was a cancelled Trek series titled Phase II in the same decade, raise your hand. Predictable. Who among you knew both facts? Again, not many. Those who do are the kind who identify the TNG episode Q’Pid and movie Insurrection from single lines of dialogue while not even in the room.

Apathetic me: I.e. you.

Nerdy me: Yes, pretty much. Anyway, today’s post features both concepts. Going back to the Animated Series (TAS), 22 episodes were produced by Filmation through 1973-74. Some of these episodes contributed significantly to Trek lore, such as Yesteryear, while others are reviled as the Star Trek versions of “Who Killed JR?” We pretend it’s all a bad dream.

Normal me: How many people get the Dallas reference?

Nerdy me: Does it really matter? Nobody ever knows what we’re going on about, that’s why we talk to ourselves.

Normal me: I question our psychological fitness at times.

Nerdy me: Anyway, James is hard at work on a CG version of the Insectoid ship from the TAS episode “Beyond the Farthest Star.” It’s a very fluid design, organic in nature, and a pain to build. He’s working on it, though. Here’s a preview:

Artistic me: I don’t think he’s ever done anything quite so…fluid.

Nerdy me: It’s a lot of subdivision and shape merging. Not too complicated a process, but tedious. Anyway, James made the not-so-brilliant choice to produce screenshots from TAS in random order. Interestingly, he started with the very last episode, possibly because it was simple.

Normal me: And that episode is?

Nerdy me: “The Counter-Clock Incident.” The Enterprise is transporting her very first captain, Robert April, to his retirement ceremony when it tries to rescue a ship heading straight for a supernova remnant. They tractor it, but it’s moving so quickly that it drags the Enterprise along and pulls it into the remnant too. It turns out that the remnant is in the same place as a newly forming star in an antimatter universe and acts as a passage between them. In that universe, everything is inverted, even the flow of time (interesting concept, failed execution, though). The crew begins “youthening” and eventually, Captain April and his wife are young again and he must command the Enterprise as they try to escape the way they came. They make it back, everyone ages normally, and they all live happily ever after.

Apathetic me: Madcap episode, and not particularly good…

Nerdy me: They tried. At any rate, it was the final episode of the series, and the first James produced a clip from in CGI form.

Artistic me: So strange to see her against a white backdrop, but she always looks good in every case.

Nerdy me: Wait until you see “The Majiks of Megas-Tu”…

Artistic me: Don’t remind me of that episode, please.

Nerdy me: Mmkay, then. Now, James felt like he could do something else interesting with the concept, so he decided to go ahead and produce a what-if image, where the redesigned Enterprise for the cancelled Phase II series would be seen in the same shot. Here for your viewing pleasure is the result:

Normal me: Interesting. Does he plan to do that for the entire series?

Nerdy me: If he produces images for it, yes.

Normal me: Well, it’s always nice to see that version of the ship now and then. Hopefully it turns out well.

Nerdy me: Hopefully the scenes are a bit less impossible too. That’s it for those, now, so we’ll have the rest for next time I suppose.

Nerdy me: Whoa…James forgot about that commercial. A Super Bowl XL commercial for Aleve with Leonard Nimoy complaining about the Vulcan salute hurting. Takes the Aleve, pain’s gone, and the convention crowd goes wild as he does that legendary gesture.